To Each His Own?

How Comparisons with

Others Influence Consumers’ Evaluations of
Their Self-Designed Products
C. PAGE MOREAU
KELLY B. HERD*

The vast majority of consumer behavior research has examined how consumers
respond to products that are offered on a “take it or leave it” basis by the manu-
facturer. Self-design changes the rules substantially, allowing consumers to have
much more control over the product’s characteristics. This research examines the
factors influencing consumers’ evaluations of self-designed products. Three studies
demonstrate that a superior fit between consumers’ underlying preferences and
their customized products cannot fully explain self-design evaluations. Compari-
sons with designers of comparable products can significantly influence evaluations
as well. The first two experiments examine how social comparisons with the de-
signers of similar “off-the-rack” products influence evaluations, identifying two key
moderators useful in overcoming the negative effects of an upward comparison.
A third study uses a real online design task to gain understanding of how the timing
of the social comparison moderates the direction of the comparison (upward vs.
equivalent) to influence evaluations.

I n product categories ranging from running shoes to pet

beds to ceiling fans, consumers are becoming the de-
signers of their own products. The slogan at NikeID (Nike’s
custom design service), “Perfection is personal,” lures con-
sumers into this role with the promise of a product that
wholly embodies their highly individual and often idiosyn-
cratic tastes. “Self-design” (or “user-design”) is the relevant
construct emerging in the marketing literature to describe
this voluntary shift in responsibility from the producer to
the consumer. While some limited research has examined
how the format of the self-design task influences consumer
utility (e.g., Dellaert and Stremersch 2005; Randall, Ter-
wiesch, and Ulrich 2007), little attention has focused on
how the role shift itself has influenced the consumer, both
in terms of the self-design experience and evaluations of
the subsequent outcome.
*C. Page Moreau is associate professor of marketing, Leeds School of
Business, University of Colorado, UCB 419, Boulder, CO 80309 (page
.moreau@colorado.edu). Kelly B. Herd is a doctoral student in marketing
at the Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado, UCB 419, Boul-
der, CO 80309 (kelly.herd@colorado.edu). The authors gratefully acknowl-
edge the helpful input of the editor, associate editor, and four reviewers.
The authors would like to thank Don Lehmann, Paul Herr, and Caleb
Warren for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.
John Deighton served as editor and Deborah MacInnis served as associate
editor for this article.
Electronically published August 26, 2009
806
Consumers who purchase self-designed products are ef-
fectively rejecting the professionally designed alternatives
offered by the manufacturer in favor of ones they feel more
accurately meet their own needs and wants. Consumers be-
lieve they have much better access to their own tastes and
preferences than do anonymous designers, and the empirical
research to date suggests that, holding product quality con-
stant, most consumers show a dramatic preference for their
own individual designs (e.g., Deng and Hutchinson 2009;
Franke and Piller 2004). Surprisingly limited research exists,
however, to explain such dominant preferences.
Superior fit alone may be responsible for the premium.
However, when consumers choose to assume the role of the
designer, they implicitly relinquish professional expertise
and talent, a move that may have some subtle but significant
effects on the evaluations of their self-designed products.
Specifically, this role shift may prompt comparisons with
the designers of comparable products. As social comparison
theory (Festinger 1954) has repeatedly shown, almost every
self-evaluation carries more weight in a comparative context
(Mussweiler, Gabriel, and Bodenhausen 2000).
In this article, we use three studies to demonstrate that
consumers’ social comparisons to the designers of compa-
rable products influence evaluations of their own creations.
Since professionally designed, “off-the-rack” alternatives
often serve as a basis of comparison for one’s own designs,
the first two experiments examine how social comparisons

2009 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 36 ● February 2010

All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2010/3605-0012$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/644612
EVALUATIONS OF SELF-DESIGNED PRODUCTS
with the designers of these products influence consumers’
evaluations. These experiments also identify two key mod-
erators useful in overcoming the negative effects of an up-
ward comparison to a professional designer. A third study
uses a real online design task to gain understanding of how
the timing of the social comparison moderates the direction
of the comparison (upward vs. equivalent) to influence self-
evaluations. In this study, designs are created, orders are
placed, and products are produced to specification. The de-
sign of this study enables us to extend recent work in social
comparison theory by focusing on the motivational and be-
havioral consequences of the comparison (e.g., Johnson and
Stapel 2007; Lockwood and Pinkus 2008, 251).
Together, these studies demonstrate how threats generated
by upward comparisons with professional designers can be
both overcome and leveraged to influence evaluations of
self-designed products. The contributions of this research
are threefold. First, prior research has focused exclusively
on the relationship between social comparison information
and evaluations of the self. We demonstrate that the influ-
ence of comparison information is more widespread, ex-
tending beyond self-evaluations to evaluations of products
that are self-designed. Second, our research shows that con-
sumers’ behavior following an upward and potentially
threatening comparison can influence subsequent evalua-
tions. Although this mechanism has been hypothesized (John-
son and Stapel 2007), it has not been fully tested. Third,
and more generally, our research identifies the important
influence that social comparison information can have on
the premium consumers place on their self-designed prod-
ucts. The prevailing belief is that consumers value custom-
ized products because the products better match their ideal,
internally held preferences (Arora et al. 2008, 313) and be-
cause consumers play an active role in the design process
(Franke, Schreier, and Kaiser, forthcoming). While these
factors are clearly important, our findings demonstrate that
external factors can also significantly influence consumers’
evaluations of their products. Thus, the work has implica-
tions for firms striving to optimize the design experience
for consumers and to increase both self-evaluations and
product satisfaction.
SOCIAL COMPARISON AND SELF-
DESIGNED PRODUCTS
Social comparison research has consistently demonstrated
that people have an intense interest in gaining self-knowl-
edge and spend a significant amount of time involved in
self-reflective, comparative thought (Csikszentmihalyi and
Figurski 1982; Mussweiler and Ruter 2003). Thus, consum-
ers’ evaluations of self-designed products are likely to be
based on the outcomes of two key comparisons. First and
most obvious is the comparison with the style, execution,
and details of other comparable products. Second and more
807
subtle is the social comparison with the skills, talent, and
expertise of the designers of those other products.
Consumers who undertake creative tasks are motivated,
in part, by a sense of autonomy (Dahl and Moreau 2007).
One might expect these consumers to rely primarily on their
own internal standards when evaluating their creations. Yet
research has shown that the innate drive to look externally
for comparison information is quite strong (Klein 1997;
Mussweiler and Ruter 2003; Mussweiler, Ruter, and Epstude
2004). Thus, we propose that self-designers will engage in
social comparisons with the designers of comparable prod-
ucts and that the outcome of these comparisons will influ-
ence evaluations of their own self-designed products.
Professionals often have a significant advantage, either
real or perceived, over consumers, in terms of their knowl-
edge, training, and experience. When a comparable product
is designed by a professional, the consumer self-designer
faces an upward social comparison on these dimensions.
Much of the recent research on upward comparisons has
focused on how individuals cope with the threats they create
(Argo, White, and Dahl 2006; Schwinghammer, Stapel, and
Blanton 2006), indicating that upward comparisons generate
negative information about the self.
If these upward comparisons occur spontaneously, mar-
keters and manufacturers offering self-designed products
need to understand ways to avoid or mitigate their negative
influences. One possibility would be to change the direction
of the comparison. Rather than use professionals as default
designers, marketers could highlight default designs created
by other consumers. While this practice may raise some
interesting ethical issues, it is a strategy employed by a
growing number of companies, including Threadless (Heim,
Schau and Price 2008; Humphreys and Grayson 2008),
Spoonflower, and Lego. When a consumer spontaneously
compares his or her own design to one created by another
consumer, there should be no significant social comparison
differences based on professional training and experience.
For many manufacturers, however, providing consumer-
designed defaults may be either implausible or undesirable.
For these firms, the negative effects of an upward compar-
ison could be reduced by including some guidance and ad-
vice during the design process (Randall, Terwiesch, and
Ulrich 2005). Ideally, the guidance would imbue the con-
sumer with the feelings that accompany the training, skill,
and experience of the professional without taking away from
the perceived autonomy that motivated the self-design de-
cision in the first place (Dahl and Moreau 2007).
Holding the actual design characteristics of the compar-
ison product constant, the preceding discussion leads to the
following hypothesis, which is tested in study 1:
H1a: When the default product is professionally de-
signed, evaluations of self-designed products
will be lower than evaluations when the default
product is consumer designed.
H1b: The provision of guidance during the design
process will attenuate this effect.
808
STUDY 1
Design and Procedure
Participants were 105 undergraduates from the University
of Colorado who participated in this study for course credit.
As a cover story, participants were told that the study was
about products targeted to members of their demographic
group. To increase involvement, participants were offered
the opportunity to enter a lottery for the target product. In
reality, the stimuli used for all participants was an L.L. Bean
backpack that was selected because it both is relevant to the
participant population and can be plausibly customized on
only its aesthetic dimensions.
Two factors were manipulated between participants: (1) de-
signer of the default backpack (professional vs. consumer)
and (2) customization guidance (present vs. absent). Criti-
cally, all participants viewed the exact same color version
of the default backpack from L.L. Bean (see fig. A1 in the
appendix). Upon arriving, participants were randomly as-
signed to one of the four experimental conditions and were
given a packet containing the manipulations. After hearing
the cover story and the lottery option, participants were
exposed to the picture of the default backpack and the de-
signer manipulation. Participants were then informed that
the L.L. Bean Web site offers consumers the option of cus-
tomizing their backpacks. Participants were asked whether,
if they were truly in the market for a new backpack, they
would like the chance to customize the one they had just
viewed (yes or no). If they answered yes, participants pro-
ceeded to the customization task (described below) and sub-
sequently to the dependent measures, covariate measures,
and lottery form. If participants answered no, they proceeded
straight to the covariate measures and lottery form. For those
who chose the customization task, the entire study took ap-
proximately 25 minutes to complete.
Independent Factors
Designer of the Default Product. All participants were
shown a color picture of the default backpack (see fig. A1)
along with the text: “L.L. Bean has just announced its new
backpacks for 2007. Rather than rely on marketing research,
which is typically done, the company decided to try a new
approach for the design.” In the professional condition, the
text continued, “The company leaders picked representatives
from the marketing department to choose colors based on
their preferences and the color combinations they believed
would be well accepted by the company’s target consumers.
Here is the final product.” In the consumer condition, the
text stated, “The company sponsored a contest in which con-
sumers each created a color combination that they thought
would be well-received by other customers. Here is one of
the award winners.”
It was crucial that, when combined with the picture, no
differences in the perceived attractiveness or quality of the
default backpack emerged across the two conditions. Es-
tablishing this fact is important to ensure that any subsequent
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
differences in evaluations of self-designed products can be
attributed to the designer, not to the actual design itself.
Thus, a pretest was conducted in which the designer ma-
nipulation was paired with the picture of the default back-
pack. Thirty-five participants from the same population were
randomly assigned to one of the two designer manipulations
described above, viewed the picture of the default backpack,
and responded to measures about the default product.
On six 9-point scales, participants reported their evalu-
ations of the backpack. The items included the degree to
which participants agreed that the backpack was a good
product and was well-designed, how stylish and attractive
they thought it was, how much they thought they would
enjoy using it, and how likely they thought other students
on campus would like it.
All items loaded on a single factor and were averaged
to create an overall measure of evaluation (M p 6.3 ;
range p 2.2–9.0; a p .88). The pretest revealed no dif-
ferences in evaluations of the backpack between those who
believed it was designed by professionals and those who
believed it was designed by another consumer (Mcons. p
3.8 vs. Mprof. p 3.8; NS).
Customization Guidance. All participants who chose
to customize the backpack were given a palette of 20 colors
along with a black-and-white drawing of a backpack indi-
cating the areas for which they could choose their colors
(see fig. A1). Below the drawing were spaces in which
participants could indicate their color choices. In the “no
guidance” condition, participants were told, “If you chose
‘Yes’ to the customization option, please take a moment to
consider the color combination that you would choose.” In
the “guidance” condition, the following information was
also provided, which was adapted directly from the L.L.
Bean Web site’s instructions for its Custom Super Deluxe
Book Pack (http://www.llbean.com/): “Attached is a list of
20 different color choices. You may choose colors for the
5 parts of the backpack, which are listed below. Please
choose no more than three colors total. We suggest you start
with a body color and then add one or two more colors as
an accent. Too many colors can sometimes be overwhelm-
ing. Try darker colors for a conservative, timeless style. Or
use bright, high-energy colors to show off your distinct per-
sonality. Experiment with high contrast—dark and light col-
ors together can create depth and visual interest.”
A pretest was conducted to gain understanding of the
influence of the guidance manipulation on those undertaking
the customization task. Recall that, ideally, the guidance
would give consumers feelings that would help them over-
come the negative effects of an upward comparison with
professionals while at the same time not severely limiting
their perceptions of autonomy. Forty-nine participants from
the same population were randomly assigned to one of the
two guidance conditions. All participants completed the cus-
tomization task and responded to a set of dependent mea-
sures regarding their experiences during the customization
task. The items were submitted to an exploratory factor
analysis, and three factors emerged.
EVALUATIONS OF SELF-DESIGNED PRODUCTS
Four items loaded on the first dimension, indicating how
talented, confident, competent, and intelligent participants
felt while customizing the backpack. These items seemed
to capture perceptions of competence and were averaged
to create an index (M p 4.9; range p 1.0–8.3; a p .86).
Four items loaded on the second dimension, which appeared
to capture autonomy. These items indicated the extent to
which the participants were able to express their creativity,
be original in their designs, and have the autonomy and
freedom to express their taste in their designs (M p 5.7;
range p 1.0–9.0; a p .80). The third dimension was re-
lated to effort, with the final four items indicating how much
effort the task required, how hard participants concentrated,
how hard they thought about the task, and how overwhelm-
ing they found the task (M p 3.0; range p 1.0–7.8; a p
.78).
Each of the three indices was used as a dependent measure
to test for differences between the types of guidance. The
only significant difference that emerged was on the com-
petence dimension. Participants for whom the guidance was
present felt greater levels of competence during the custom-
ization task than did those for whom the guidance was absent
(Mpres. p 5.2 vs. Mabs. p 4.4; F(1, 48) p 4.86, p ! .05). As
intended, the manipulation did not influence perceptions of
autonomy (Mpres. p 5.9 vs. Mabs. p 5.7; F(1, 48) p 0.76,
NS), nor did it significantly influence the perceived amount
of effort required (Mpres. p 3.2 vs. Mabs. p 2.7; F(1, 48) p
3.5, p 1 .05). While the effect of the guidance manipulation
on perceived effort was not statistically significant for this
set of instructions, the pattern of data suggests that adhering
to the guidance provided may require more effort than cus-
tomizing a product in its absence does. Such a possibility
should be considered when attempting to generalize to other
contexts.
Dependent Measures
Decision to Self-Design. Participants chose whether
they wanted to customize the default backpack. This deci-
sion did not affect whether they could enter into the lottery.
Evaluations of the Self-Designed Backpack. Partic-
ipants’ evaluations of their self-designed backpacks were
measured using the same six items used to evaluate the
default backpack in the pretest, reworded appropriately. All
items loaded on a single factor and were averaged to create
an overall evaluation index (M p 6.3; range p 3.0–9.0 ;
a p .92). Only the participants who chose to customize the
backpack provided data for these measures.
Results
Decision to Self-Design. Of the 105 participants, 90%
chose to self-design, a result that was rather surprising. Al-
though it was not blatantly emphasized, participants were
free to leave the experimental session when they had com-
pleted this study. Choosing to self-design the backpack re-
quired more time, and even though the vast majority of those
809
making this choice were not going to actually receive the
customized backpack, they still chose to invest the time.
With such low variance on this measure, however, it is not
surprising that no significant differences emerged between
the proportion choosing to self-design after seeing the pro-
fessional-designed default (92%) and the proportion choos-
ing to self-design after seeing the consumer-designed default
(89%).
Evaluations of the Self-Designed Backpack. A two-
way ANOVA was used to test hypothesis 1 and to assess
the influence of the two manipulated factors on participants’
evaluations of their own self-designed backpacks. Partici-
pants’ attitudes toward L.L. Bean were used as a covariate
in the analysis to control for differences in brand attitudes
across participants. When the designer of the default product
was a professional instead of another consumer, participants’
evaluations of their own self-designed products were lower
(Mprof. p 6.0 vs. Mcons. p 6.6; F(1, 94) p 4.49, p ! .05).
This main effect, however, was qualified by a significant
interaction (F(1, 94) p 4.05, p ! .05). Consistent with hy-
pothesis 1a, this effect was significant when no guidance
was provided (Mprof., no guide p 5.7 vs. Mcons., no guide p 6.7 ;
F(1, 44) p 7.39, p ! .01). However, participants who re-
ceived guidance did not show evidence of the upward com-
parison’s negative effects (Mprof., guide p 6.3 vs. Mcons., guide p
6.5; F(1, 49) p 0.69, NS) consistent with hypothesis 1b.
Participants’ attitudes toward L.L. Bean were unaffected
by the manipulations, and when they were removed as a
covariate, the results were replicated but with somewhat
weaker effects.
Discussion
The findings of this study are important on two levels.
First, a comparison of the mean evaluations of the default
backpack (M p 3.8) with those of the self-designed back-
packs (M p 6.3) highlights the premium value consumers
place on products that they have self-designed, a finding
previously documented in the literature (Franke and Piller
2004). Prior studies that have demonstrated such premiums
have given participants the actual products (e.g., watches).
The replication here provides confidence in the realism of
our manipulations.
Second, this study provides evidence that an upward so-
cial comparison can occur when consumers take over design
authority from a professional. Importantly, evidence of the
social comparison emerged in evaluations of the self-de-
signed products, indicating that these effects can extend be-
yond direct evaluations of the self. The data indicate that
participants facing an upward comparison to a professional
processed the social comparison information nondefensi-
vely, integrating the negative information into the evalua-
tions of their self-designed backpacks (Schwinghammer et
al. 2006). The provision of guidance apparently mitigated
the amount of negative information generated by the com-
parison. In contrast, participants engaged in a comparison
with another consumer likely generated little negative com-
810
parison information to begin with. As such, the guidance
provided had no significant influence on their evaluations.
DEFENSIVE VERSUS NONDEFENSIVE
PROCESSING
Since not all consumers are likely to be receptive to guid-
ance during self-design tasks, nor are all firms willing or
able to provide it, identifying other means for overcoming
the negative influence of upward comparisons is important.
The nondefensive processing observed in study 1 resulted
in lower self-evaluations. Could consumers be encouraged
to process the negative comparison information defensively
rather than nondefensively? Defensive processing occurs
when the need to protect self-esteem is salient (Taylor and
Lobel 1989; Wood 1989) and is often evidenced by self-
serving behaviors designed specifically to protect the in-
dividual’s self-image (e.g., Argo et al. 2006; Kunda 1990;
Stapel and Koomen 2001; Tesser, Millar, and Moore 1988).
Although prior research has identified a number of defensive
strategies, one tactic is particularly relevant in the self-design
context: diminishing the valuation of the comparison target
(e.g., the default backpack). Schwinghammer et al. (2006)
argue that by denying the attractiveness of the comparison
target, the threat of an upward social comparison can be
reduced (29).
In study 1, participants did not have the opportunity to
diminish the value of the comparison target; thus, upward
comparisons produced nondefensive reactions to the nega-
tive comparison information. When consumers are given the
opportunity to process defensively before customizing and
evaluating their own products, however, we expect that the
negative information generated by an upward comparison
will no longer be incorporated into self-evaluations. By de-
nying the attractiveness of the default product, consumers
can effectively cope with the upward threat, and subsequent
self-evaluations should no longer reflect the negative infor-
mation generated by the comparison. More formally,
H2a: When defensive processing is not enabled, eval-
uations of self-designed products will be lower
when the default product is professionally de-
signed rather than consumer designed.
H2b: Enabling defensive processing will attenuate
this effect.
STUDY 2
In this study, we use the same stimuli, procedure, and
manipulations as in study 1, with the following two im-
portant changes: (1) no guidance was provided to any of
the participants, and (2) a new manipulation was added to
enable defensive processing. Specifically, defensive pro-
cessing was enabled for half of the participants by allowing
them to evaluate (and therefore potentially diminish the
value of) the default backpack with the full knowledge that
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
they would be customizing their own backpack. The other
half of the participants evaluated the default backpack before
learning about their own customization opportunity. This
group was effectively denied the opportunity to diminish
the value of the default.
These two changes yielded a 2 (designer of the default
backpack: professional vs. consumer) # 2 (defensive pro-
cessing: enabled vs. disabled) between-participants experi-
ment. Participants were 146 undergraduates at the University
of Colorado who completed the study in exchange for course
credit.
Dependent Measures
Decision to Self-Design. Participants chose whether
they wanted to customize the default backpack. This deci-
sion did not affect whether they could enter into the lottery.
Evaluations of the Self-Designed Backpack. Evalu-
ations of the self-designed backpacks were measured with
the same instrument used in study 1. All items loaded on a
single factor and were averaged to create an overall eval-
uation index (M p 5.8; range p 2.7–9.0; a p .92).
Results
Decision to Self-Design. As in study 1, a large per-
centage (82%) of the 146 participants chose to self-design
(n p 120). No differences in participation rates were ob-
served across conditions.
Evaluations of the Self-Designed Backpack. A two-
way ANOVA was used to test the effects of the manipulated
variables on participants’ evaluations of their self-designed
backpacks. As in study 1, participants’ attitudes toward L.L.
Bean were unaffected by the manipulations and were in-
cluded as a covariate. Consistent with hypothesis 2, the
results revealed only an interaction between the two factors
(F(1, 119) p 5.25, p ! .05). With defensive processing dis-
abled, participants facing an upward social comparison in-
corporated the negative information into their self-evalua-
tions in a manner consistent with nondefensive processing
and with the results observed in study 1 (Mprof., disable p
5.3 vs. Mcons., disable p 6.4; F(1, 56) p 6.88, p ! .01). When
defensive processing was enabled, however, participants had
the chance to diminish the threat of an upward comparison,
and no differences emerged in the self-evaluations consistent
with hypothesis 2b (Mprof., enable p 5.9 vs. Mcons., enable p 5.8;
F(1, 62) p 0.29, NS). Importantly, when participants faced
the upward threat from a professionally designed default,
the ability to process defensively significantly influenced
evaluations of the self-designed backpacks (Mprof., enable p
5.9 vs. Mprof., disable p 5.3; F(1, 58) p 3.75, p ! .05). This
finding provides more evidence that diminishing the value
of the comparison target can mitigate its threat.
EVALUATIONS OF SELF-DESIGNED PRODUCTS
Discussion
The results from study 2 demonstrate that enabling con-
sumers to process upward social comparison information
defensively can enhance the evaluations of their self-de-
signed products. Rather than incorporate the negative com-
parison information into their self-evaluations, defensive
processors diminished the value of the comparison target.
Together, the first two studies consistently demonstrate
that the nondefensive processing of upward comparison in-
formation results in lower evaluations of one’s own design.
The provision of guidance (study 1) and the opportunity to
diminish the valuation of the comparison target with defen-
sive processing (study 2) work in different ways to restore
these evaluations. Recent research in social comparison the-
ory has identified another defensive mechanism, this one
behavioral, by which consumers may also cope with threat-
ening information from an upward social comparison (John-
son and Stapel 2007; Lockwood and Pinkus 2008). Specif-
ically, Johnson and Stapel (2007, 1053) propose that “when
individuals feel threatened by an upward comparison target,
they will be motivated to protect or repair their self-eval-
uations, and one means for self-regard repair is improved
performance” on a subsequent task.
THE BEHAVIORAL CONSEQUENCES OF
SOCIAL COMPARISON IN SELF-DESIGN
Research examining the influence of upward social com-
parisons on individuals’ behavior has produced equivocal
results (Johnson and Stapel 2007; Lockwood and Pinkus
2008). In some cases, superior others serve as role models
to motivate self-improvement (e.g., Blanton et al. 1999;
Lockwood and Pinkus 2008; Taylor and Lobel 1989); in
others, they reduce self-concepts and lead to diminished
performance (Guay, Marsh, and Boivin 2003). Johnson and
Stapel (2007) assert that the inconsistencies in this prior
research can be attributed to the presence or absence of an
opportunity to repair a threatened self-regard (i.e., an op-
portunity to engage in an ensuing task that is related to the
domain in which the individual was threatened).
Johnson and Stapel (2007) hypothesized and found that
higher threat perceptions were related to higher performance
on subsequent tasks. Their studies manipulated the type of
comparison target (extreme upward, moderate upward), mea-
sured the effect on self-evaluations, and measured the effect
on task performance. Their research, however, did not pro-
vide evidence that the improved task performance had a
positive influence on subsequent self-evaluations. In fact,
they note that “future studies examining the efficacy of per-
formance as a means of self-regard repair would be useful”
(1055).
Our third study is designed to do just that, with the context
of a contest hosted by a real Web site offering consumers
the opportunity to self-design products. The direction of the
social comparison is manipulated by varying the nature of
the self-designers expected to enter the contest (consumers
vs. professionals). We chose the contest context, in part,
811
because firms across a wide range of industries are using
competitions to generate and evaluate consumers’ design
ideas and other forms of consumer-generated content. Thread-
less, for example, has experienced revenue growth of 500%
per year by holding T-shirt design competitions; at Thread-
less, both the designs and their evaluations are done by
consumers (Chafkin 2008). Other examples include Tree
Hugger, which sponsors a furniture design competition for
consumers, and Spoonflower, which hosts a “fabric-of-the-
week” contest (Scelfo 2009).
We propose that competing to publicly demonstrate one’s
design ability can serve as a means for repairing or en-
hancing self-regard, an opportunity likely to be particularly
appealing to those whose self-evaluations have been threat-
ened by an upward comparison. While some design contests
do offer a cash reward to the winner, almost all of them
offer some level of public recognition as a prize. Actively
pursuing (and achieving) such recognition is likely to serve
as a means for improving one’s self-evaluations in the design
arena. At Threadless, for example, the appeal to artists is
much less about the monetary reward ($150 in 2004) and
much more about the visibility associated with having their
shirt available for sale (Chafkin 2008).
The benefits of a contest to self-evaluations, however,
should be observed only when the contest creates a repair
opportunity by allowing the consumer to work explicitly
toward the goal of winning. By choosing to compete, people
can work intentionally to demonstrate their competency in
the threatened domain to both themselves and others. Such
a situation would occur when a contest is announced before
the self-design opportunity. When the contest does not pro-
vide such a repair opportunity (e.g., if it is announced after
the design process is complete), the degree to which the
person’s ability is threatened is unlikely to influence the
appeal of the contest and, thus, self-evaluations.
More formally, we advance the following:
H3a: When a social comparison is followed by a
repair opportunity, upward comparison targets
(i.e., professional designers) will yield higher
evaluations of self-designed products than will
equivalent comparison targets (i.e., consumer
designers).
H3b: When a social comparison is not followed by
a repair opportunity, evaluations of self-de-
signed products will be unaffected by the type
of comparison target.
In the following study, all participants have the oppor-
tunity to process the comparison information defensively by
diminishing the value of the comparison targets (i.e., the
other potential contest entrants) before providing self-eval-
uations. Were such an opportunity unavailable, we would
expect to observe lower evaluations for those facing the
upward rather than the equivalent comparison targets when
the comparison follows the repair opportunity.
812
STUDY 3
Stimuli and Procedure
Several criteria were used to select the product for this
study: (a) affordability (since participants would receive the
self-designed product created), (b) relevance to the partic-
ipant population (University of Colorado undergraduates),
and (c) customization dimensions (products that offered aes-
thetic but not functional customization opportunities were
considered). Customizable vinyl “skins” for electronic de-
vices (e.g., cell phones, MP3 players) met all three criteria.
MyTego.com agreed to work with us, providing us with
unique coupon codes for 50% off the skins’ face value and
individually packaging and batch shipping our orders.
Participants were 93 undergraduates from the University
of Colorado who participated in this study in exchange for
both course credit and receipt of the self-designed product.
The study was administered using online survey software
(Survey Monkey), and participants completed the study at
the time and location of their choosing (within a 48-hour
window). The intent was to create a study atmosphere that
most closely approximated a real world setting. While par-
ticipants’ motivation for participating in the study was cer-
tainly influenced by their course participation credit, seven
other experiments were available to them at the time. Thus,
some self-selection was involved, further adding to the
study’s realism.
Participants all received an e-mail message containing
their identification number, $10 coupon code, and link to
the online survey. Upon opening the survey, participants
were asked to agree to complete the study in one sitting and
in a private setting relatively free from distractions. They
then were provided with an overview of the study, were
exposed to the manipulations, and were directed to open the
MyTego.com Web site in another browser in which they
proceeded to design their skin. Although MyTego.com al-
lows customers to upload their own pictures to use in their
designs, we instructed our participants not to do this but
rather to use the library of design options provided on the
Web site. Even with this restriction, participants were able
to choose one or more of the more than 300 stored designs,
select the parts of them they wanted, and alter the size and
orientation to create their design (see fig. A2 for examples).
On MyTego.com, consumers can experiment with various
designs, viewing the outcomes as they work.
Once they finished designing their skin, participants com-
pleted the dependent measures, using the online survey.
When the shipment of skins arrived, participants were e-
mailed and informed of the location and times for pick up.
Design
Two factors were manipulated between participants: (1) the
timing of the social comparison (before the design task vs.
after the design task) and (2) the direction of the social
comparison (upward: professional designers vs. equivalent:
consumer peers).
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Independent Factors
Timing of the Social Comparison. Half of the partic-
ipants were provided with the social comparison information
(via the contest announcement) before going to MyTego
.com to begin designing their skin. These participants had
an opportunity to repair or enhance a threatened self-regard
via their performance on the design task. The other half
were informed of the contest just after they finished de-
signing their skin, leaving them with no opportunity to use
the design task to repair or enhance their self-regard. All
dependent measures (including the decision to enter the con-
test) were collected after participants had completed the de-
sign process. Importantly, evaluations of the self-designed
products for all participants were collected after they were
exposed to the contest announcement, thus allowing all par-
ticipants an equal opportunity to engage in other defensive
coping strategies.
Direction of the Social Comparison. The type of com-
petition faced in the contest was used to manipulate the
direction of the social comparison (upward: professional de-
signers vs. equivalent: consumer peers). When informed of
the contest, all participants were given the following infor-
mation: “The web site where you’ll be customizing your
skin does a lot of business with college students, and they
want to better understand and communicate with the cus-
tomers in this group. To do so, they have identified the
University of Colorado as a representative market. The com-
pany is sponsoring a contest for the best skin design.” In
the professional condition, the following statement was then
included: “Up until now, professional designers have com-
peted to have their designs displayed on the company’s
home page. This year, the company is opening up the contest
by including a small percentage of designs produced by
college students.”
All participants were then given a bulleted list of the
contest specifics, detailed below for the professional [con-
sumer] conditions:
• The company will post the winning design as an award-
winner on their home page for the first 6 months of
2009.
• The winner will have the option of how (or if) they
would like their name displayed along with the design.
No one will be able to purchase that exact design, but
it will be prominently displayed.
• The total number of contest participants, primarily pro-
fessional designers, is expected to be around 100. [The
only possible entrants into the contest will be BCOR
(undergraduate business core) students participating in
this study at the University of Colorado. The number
of entrants is expected to be around 100.]
• A panel of professional designers [a panel of other stu-
dents participating in this study] will select the best
design from among those entered.
EVALUATIONS OF SELF-DESIGNED PRODUCTS
Dependent Measures
Decision to Enter the Contest. Upon completion of
the design task, all participants were asked to indicate
whether they wanted to enter their skin into the competition.
Evaluations of the Self-Designed Skins. In addition
to the evaluation measure used in the prior two studies, we
collected an additional indicator of participants’ evaluations
of their self-designed products: their expectations of others’
willingness to pay. Participants’ evaluations of their self-
designed skins were measured using the set of six items
adapted from those used in the prior studies. Specifically,
participants indicated the degree to which they agreed that
their skin was well-designed, stylish, attractive, and close
to their ideal, how much they thought they would enjoy
using it, and how much they thought that other students on
campus would like it. All items loaded on a single factor
and were averaged to create an overall evaluation measure
(M p 5.21; range p 1.0–7.0; a p .90).
Because participants had such a strong reference price for
the skin they had just designed (given the salient $10 cou-
pon), we asked them a willingness-to-pay question designed
to free them of that anchor. Specifically, we asked, “How
much do you think other students (who are unfamiliar with
the pricing on the MyTego website) would be willing to pay
for the skin you just designed if it fit their cell phone or
MP3 player?” (M p $8.45; range p $0–$30).
Results
Evaluations of the Self-Designed Skins. A MANOVA
was used to test hypothesis 3, with the two independent
factors and their interaction serving as predictors of the two
evaluation indicators. Only the interaction was significant
(l p .92, F(2, 89) p 3.69, p ! .05).
To better interpret this interaction, separate ANOVAs
were run on each evaluation indicator. For the evaluation
measure, only the interaction was significant (F(1, 92) p
4.06, p ! .05). Consistent with hypothesis 3a, when the
social comparison was followed by the design task, par-
ticipants facing an upward comparison reported signifi-
cantly higher self-evaluations than did those facing an equiv-
alent comparison: (Mprior, upward p 5.6 vs. Mprior, equiv. p 4.6;
F(1, 46) p 6.67, p p .01; see fig. 1A). When the social
comparison occurred after the design task, no significant
differences emerged (Mafter, upward p 5.5 vs. Mafter, equiv. p
5.4; F(1, 45) p 0.05, NS), as predicted by hypothesis 3b.
For participants’ expectations of others’ willingness to
pay for their skin, the pattern of results is also consistent
with hypothesis 3. Overall, others were expected to pay
more for the skins after an upward rather than an equivalent
social comparison (Mupward p $10.04 vs. Mequiv. p $7.56;
F(1, 92) p 4.58, p ! .05). This main effect was qualified
by a significant interaction (F(1, 92) p 5.62, p ! .05). As
predicted by hypothesis 3a, when the design task followed
the social comparison, participants facing an upward com-
813
parison had significantly higher expectations of others’
willingness to pay than did those facing an equivalent
comparison (Mprior, upward p $12.51 vs. Mprior, equiv. p $6.62;
F(1, 46) p 7.81, p ! .01; see fig. 1B). When the design task
occurred before the social comparison, no significant dif-
ferences emerged on this measure (Mafter, upward p $8.15 vs.
Mafter, equiv. p $8.45; F(1, 45) p 0.13, NS), consistent with
hypothesis 3b.
The results for both of these indicators are consistent with
hypothesis 3. However, it is interesting to note that their
patterns differ to some extent. For evaluations, an upward
comparison before the design task resulted in evaluations
similar to those observed when the comparison (upward or
equivalent) followed the design task. For expectations of
others’ willingness to pay, however, an upward comparison
before the design task yielded expectations higher than those
observed when the comparison followed the design task.
The difference between these two measures is that one is
projective (others’ willingness to pay) while the other is not
(self-evaluations). Because it encourages participants to
view their self-designed product from a more objective van-
tage point, this projective measure may have better enabled
participants to exclude some of the negative information
initially generated by the upward comparison.
Decision to Enter the Contest. A logistic regression
model was used to predict the likelihood that participants
would choose to enter their design into the contest. The
independent factors and their interaction were used as pre-
dictors. The results revealed a significant interaction be-
tween the variables (x 2 (1, 92) p 4.51, p ! .05). When the
social comparison occurred before the design task, 62% of
those facing an upward comparison to professional designers
chose to enter the contest, compared with 32% of those
facing an equivalent comparison to their peer consumers.
When the social comparison occurred after the design task,
the type of comparison had no significant influence on the
contest entry decision (upward: 33% vs. equivalent: 38%).
Earlier, we proposed that competing to publicly demon-
strate one’s design ability (by entering the contest) could
serve as a means for repairing or enhancing a threatened
self-regard. As noted, nearly twice as many participants who
were given this opportunity took it when the direction of
the comparison was upward rather than equivalent. To un-
derstand whether the contest entry decision could account
for the pattern of evaluations observed in this study, a me-
diation test was used (Baron and Kenny 1986). As described
above, the interactive effect of the independent variables is
a significant predictor of evaluations in the MANOVA
(F(2, 89) p 3.69, p ! .05). Further, the same interaction sig-
nificantly predicts the proposed mediator, contest entry de-
cision (x 2 (1, 92) p 4.51, p ! .05). When the contest entry
decision is included as a covariate in a MANCOVA, its
effect is significant (F(2, 88) p 7.93, p ! .001), and the in-
teractive effect of the independent variables falls below sig-
nificance (F(2, 88) p 2.54, p 1 .05). Together, these find-
 FIGURE 1

THE INFLUENCE OF THE TIMING AND DIRECTION OF THE SOCIAL COMPARISON INFORMATION ON EVALUATIONS
OF SELF-DESIGNED PRODUCTS (STUDY 3)
EVALUATIONS OF SELF-DESIGNED PRODUCTS
ings indicate that the contest entry decision mediates the
interactive effects of the independent variables on evalua-
tions, providing support for the proposition that actively
competing in a contest is a mechanism by which consumers
can repair or enhance their threatened self-regard.
Discussion
Theoretically, this study extends recent work in social
comparison theory by demonstrating that when upward so-
cial comparisons precede an opportunity to repair one’s self-
regard, subsequent evaluations of self-designed products are
higher than evaluations made when no such upward threat
exists. Further, these findings show that participants who
faced that upward threat before designing their skins were
almost twice as likely to enter the contest as those either
facing a lesser threat or those informed of the contest after
the design task. Because entering the contest can serve as
a way to publicly repair one’s threatened self-regard, this
finding provides further evidence documenting the mecha-
nism proposed by Johnson and Stapel (2007).
Managerially, this study provides more insight into the
success of firms, such as Threadless, that host design con-
tests that reward consumers for their creativity and design
ability. While some design contests do offer a cash reward
to the winner, almost all of them offer some level of public
recognition as a prize: Tree Hugger presents the winning
furniture design at a trade show (attributed to the designer),
and Threadless displays the winning T-shirts on its Web site
and prints the name of the designer on the label of those
sold (Ogawa and Piller 2006). Our findings show that knowl-
edge of the competition before the design task can increase
the subjective value consumers place on their self-designed
products, provided that the competition is perceived as suf-
ficiently threatening. By enabling consumers to compete
against professionals, firms may be able to maximize con-
sumer involvement and participation in self-design, as well
as other strategically important activities. One way these
firms may ensure that their contests will be motivating to
consumers is to create a tension between the professional
designers and consumer designers who have equal access
to the Web sites or communities.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
In 2006, Time magazine named “you” its Person of the
Year “for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding
and framing the new digital democracy, and for working
for nothing and beating the pros at their own game” (Gross-
man 2006). As consumers increasingly assume roles tradi-
tionally performed by professionals, understanding the fac-
tors that influence them is critical for managers whose goals
are to identify these consumers, design marketing strategies
to communicate with them, and develop new interfaces to
optimize their experiences. This research focuses on one
arena in which such a role shift is occurring: self-design.
815
Theoretical Contributions and Opportunities for
Future Research
The vast majority of research in consumer behavior has
examined how consumers respond to products offered on a
“take it or leave it” basis by the manufacturer. Self-design
changes the rules substantially, allowing consumers to play
a much more active role in the process. Together, these three
studies demonstrate that superior fit alone does not fully
explain consumers’ dominant preferences for self-designed
products. More subtle factors, such as social comparisons
to other designers, also influence consumers’ evaluations.
Together, all three studies demonstrate that the informa-
tion generated by social comparisons can be incorporated
into judgments that extend beyond the immediate self and
into judgments of products reflective of the self. This finding
has important theoretical and substantive implications as
consumers play a larger role in designing products to suit
and express their identity. These studies further show that
the premium that consumers place on these customized prod-
ucts is determined not only by internal standards but also
by external ones. Little research has examined why and how
consumers value customized products, and these studies pro-
vide some needed insight.
More specific theoretical contributions are found in the
studies as they distinguish between the effects of nonde-
fensive and defensive processing of upward comparison
threats. This research shows that upward comparison threats
generate negative comparison information if unaccompa-
nied by guidance (study 1). That negative information is
subsequently incorporated into evaluations of self-designed
products (studies 1 and 2) unless consumers are prompted
to process defensively (study 2) or are given the opportunity
to repair their threatened self-regard by purposefully en-
gaging in a related task (study 3).
The theoretical opportunities in this growth area are abun-
dant. A broader understanding of consumers’ motivation to
self-design is needed. Factors related to the product, to the
brand, and to the design context are also likely to play a
significant role in determining whether consumers will
choose to assume the designer role. Gaining this knowledge
would further our theoretical understanding of consumer
creativity and would also provide much-needed segmenta-
tion information for managers.
Further research is also needed to understand the influ-
ences that social factors and group dynamics have on both
the design process itself as well as subsequent evaluations
of the customized product. Self-design communities are en-
joying tremendous growth, and consumers working together
play a significant role in both the design and evaluation of
the products sold in these commercial venues. Additional
research might also examine the influence of the intended
consumption context (private vs. public), the nature of the
product (hedonic vs. functional), and the structure of the
design process on consumers’ motivation to self-design,
their self-design experience, and their satisfaction with the
outcome.
816
Managerial Implications
The findings presented here have implications for com-
panies in the process of determining whether and how to
allow their customers to participate in self-design. As the
results demonstrate, consumers will compare their design
skills with those of a relevant comparison designer when
evaluating their own designs. The extent to which the com-
pany can manage the type of information that results from
those comparisons may influence consumers’ ultimate sat-
isfaction with both the self-design experience and the out-
come. Our results show that companies may influence the
comparison information by controlling either the compari-
son target or the guidance available. Companies can also
influence the way in which consumers process the compar-
ison information by facilitating defensive or nondefensive
strategies.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Limitations
Because our studies were intentionally constrained to fo-
cus on customization decisions that required limited func-
tional knowledge and technical expertise, the generaliza-
bility is limited. Future work could relax these requirements
for a better understanding of their influence on consumers’
decisions to customize, perceptions of the process, and ul-
timate evaluation of and satisfaction with the outcome. A
comprehensive examination of consumers’ motivations to
engage in self-design would also help overcome the limi-
tation of the student sample. Overall, our hope is that the
current work will generate additional interest and research
for a better understanding of why consumers are choosing
to take on new roles in the value chain and, when they do,
how those new roles are affecting both them and the broader
market.
 APPENDIX

FIGURE A1

SELF-DESIGNED BACKPACK (STUDIES 1 AND 2)

NOTE.—Color version available as an online enhancement.

818 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE A2

SELF-DESIGNED SKINS (STUDY 3)

NOTE.—Color version available as an online enhancement.

REFERENCES Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Re-

Argo, Jennifer J., Katherine White, and Darren W. Dahl (2006),
“Social Comparison Theory and Deception in the Interper-
sonal Exchange of Consumption Information,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 33 (1), 99–108.
Arora, Neeraj, Xavier Dreze, Anindya Ghose, James D. Hess,
Raghuram Iyengar, Bing Jing, Yogesh Joshi, V. Kumar, Nich-
olas Lurie, Scott Neslin, S. Sajeesh, Meng Su, Niladri Syam,
Jacquelyn Thomas, and Z. John Zhang (2008), “Putting One-
to-One Marketing to Work: Personalization, Customization,
and Choice,” Marketing Letters, 19, 305–21.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-
search: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1173–82.
Blanton, Hart, Frederick X. Gibbons, Bram P. Buunk, and Hans
Kuyper (1999), “When Better-than-Others Compare Upward:
Choice of Comparison and Comparative Evaluation as In-
dependent Predictors of Academic Performance,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (3), 420–30.
Chafkin, Max (2008), “The Customer Is the Company,” Inc. Mag-
azine, June, 88–96.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Thomas J. Figurski (1982), “Self-
Awareness and Aversive Experience in Everyday Life,” Jour-
nal of Personality, 50, 15–28.
EVALUATIONS OF SELF-DESIGNED PRODUCTS
Dahl, Darren W. and C. Page Moreau (2007), “Thinking Inside
the Box: Why Consumers Enjoy Constrained Creative Ex-
periences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3), 357–69.
Dellaert, Benedict G. C. and Stefan Stremersch (2005), “Marketing
Mass-Customized Products: Striking a Balance between Util-
ity and Complexity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (2),
219–27.
Deng, Xiaoyan and J. Wesley Hutchinson (2009), “Aesthetic Self-
Design: Just Do It Yourself,” working paper, Marketing De-
partment, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.
Festinger, Leon (1954), “A Theory of Social Comparison Pro-
cesses,” Human Relations, 7 (2), 117–40.
Franke, Nikolaus and Frank Piller (2004), “Value Creation by
Toolkits for User Innovation and Design: The Case of the
Watch Market,” Journal of Product Innovation Management,
21 (6), 401–15.
Franke, Nikolaus, Martin Schreier, and Ulrike Kaiser (forthcom-
ing), “The ‘I Designed It Myself’ Effect in Mass Customi-
zation,” Management Science.
Grossman, Lev (2006), “Time’s Person of the Year: You,” Time,
December 25, 38–41.
Guay, Frédéric, Herbert W. Marsh, and Michel Boivin (2003),
“Academic Self-Concept and Academic Achievement: A De-
velopmental Perspective on Their Causal Ordering,” Journal
of Educational Psychology, 95 (1), 124–36.
Heim, Allison, Hope Jensen Schau, and Linda L. Price (2008),
“Threadless: Co-creating a Brand through Distinction and De-
mocracy,” paper presented at the Consumer Culture Theory
Conference, Boston, June 19–22.
Humphreys, Ashlee and Kent Grayson (2008), “The Intersecting
Roles of Consumer and Producer: Contemporary Criticisms
and New Analytic Directions,” Sociology Compass, 2, 1–18.
Johnson, Camille S. and Diederik A. Stapel (2007), “No Pain, No
Gain: The Conditions under Which Upward Comparisons
Lead to Better Performance,” Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 92 (6), 1051–67.
Klein, William M. (1997), “Objective Standards Are Not Enough:
Affective, Self-Evaluative, and Behavioral Responses to So-
cial Comparison Information,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72 (4), 763–74.
Kunda, Ziva (1990), “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psy-
chological Bulletin, 108 (3), 480–98.
819
Lockwood, Penelope and Rebecca T. Pinkus (2008), “The Impact
of Social Comparisons on Motivation,” in Handbook of Mo-
tivation Science, ed. James Y. Shah and Wendi L. Gardner,
New York: Guilford, 251–64.
Mussweiler, Thomas and Katja Ruter (2003), “What Friends Are
For! The Use of Routine Standards in Social Comparison,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (3), 467–81.
Mussweiler, Thomas, Katja Ruter, and Kai Epstude (2004), “The
Man Who Wasn’t There: Subliminal Social Comparison Stan-
dards Influence Self-Evaluation,” Journal of Experimental So-
cial Psychology, 40 (5), 689–96.
Mussweiler, Thomas, Gabriel Shira, and Galen V. Bodenhausen
(2000), “Shifting Social Identities as a Strategy for Deflecting
Threatening Social Comparisons,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79 (3), 398–409.
Ogawa, Susumu and Frank T. Piller (2006), “Reducing the Risks
of New Product Development,” MIT Sloan Management Re-
view, 47 (2), 65–71.
Randall, Taylor, Christian Terwiesch, and Karl T. Ulrich (2005),
“Principles for User Design of Customized Products,” Cali-
fornia Management Review, 47 (4), 68–85.
——— (2007), “User Design of Customized Products,” Marketing
Science, 26 (2), 268–80.
Scelfo, Julie (2009), “Fabric: You Design It, They Print It,” New
York Times, January 8.
Schwinghammer, Saskia A., Diederik A. Stapel, and Hart Blanton
(2006), “Different Selves Have Different Effects: Self-Acti-
vation and Defensive Social Comparison,” Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32 (1), 27–39.
Stapel, Diederik A. and Willem Koomen (2001), “I, We, and the
Effects of Others on Me: How Self-Construal Level Mod-
erates Social Comparison Effects,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80 (5), 766–81.
Taylor, Shelley E. and Marci Lobel (1989), “Social Comparison
Activity under Threat: Downward Evaluation and Upward
Contacts,” Psychological Review, 96 (4), 569–75.
Tesser, Abraham, Murrary Millar, and Janet Moore (1988), “Some
Affective Consequences of Social Comparison and Reflection
Processes: The Pain and Pleasure of Being Close,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (1), 49–61.
Wood, Joanne V. (1989), “Theory and Research Concerning Social
Comparisons of Personal Attributes,” Psychological Bulletin,
106 (2), 231–48.